One of the issues that remains unresolved in the reconciliation between Canada and Indigenous peoples is the understanding of Indigenous sovereignty. From the literature read in class, it is clear that, although there has been an attempt at recognizing Indigenous sovereignty, there is a lack of comprehension on what sovereignty is and what it means for Indigenous people. This theme interests me because there are many interpretations of sovereignty. When looking at the readings this is clear. Some authors use it interchangeably with self-government and self-determination while others are clear that they represent different things. I also find it interesting how the readings flowed from the discussion of what the Crown and the Canadian government believed Aboriginal rights to be and then moved to discussions based around Indigenous groups being in charge of their own rights.
Starting with an analysis of the White Paper and the subsequent Red Paper. The White Paper was written by Jean Chrétien while Pierre Trudeau was Prime Minister (Metallic in Indian Chiefs of Alberta, 2011). In this paper, there is no Aboriginal perspective, even though consultations with Indigenous groups took place (Metallic in Indian Chiefs of Alberta, 2011). Within the White paper, Chrétien writes that the treaties should be equitably terminated along with the Indian Act (Metallic in Indian Chiefs of Alberta, 2011). One of the goals of the White Paper was to revoke status of Indians, however the Treaty Indians did not approve of this because their status is in relation to their history and portrays their treaty rights (Metallic in Indian Chiefs of Alberta, 2011). The treaty Indians believe the only way to preserve their identity, culture and rights is to stay ‘Indian’ (Metallic in Indian Chiefs of Alberta, 2011). Furthermore, when looking at Indigenous perspective on this paper, some have said it is simply the latest paper in a long line of documents that aid in the assimilation of Indigenous peoples (Metallic in Indian Chiefs of Alberta, 2011). I would have to agree with that Indigenous perspective. While the White Paper may have had good intentions, the overall message seems to be one that has been seen many times by the Indigenous people. That message being that they do not have any authority on decisions that directly impact them and their lives. In the White Paper, there seems to be a complete disregard for Indigenous self-government and autonomy. However, the creation of the White Paper did spur Indigenous activism and the creation of the Red Paper. The Red Paper was a direct response to the White Paper brought to the Federal Government by the Indian Chiefs of Alberta (Metallic in Indian Chiefs of Alberta, 2011). The goal of the Red Paper was to get the Canadian government to recognize treaty rights (Metallic in Indian Chiefs of Alberta, 2011).
The theme of sovereignty is apparent when looking at the readings on Aboriginal rights. In the readings that defined Aboriginal rights it is apparent that the Crown has the fiduciary responsibility of protecting native lands (Pelizzari in Slattery, 1987). The Crown has the duty to protect Indigenous peoples specifically in their aboriginal rights and in the possession and use of their land (Pelizzari in Slattery, 1987). This duty is found in the royal proclamation of 1763 (Pelizzari in Slattery, 1987). The Aboriginal title exists apart from any executive or legislative act, and by implication, apart from any fiduciary obligation owed by the crown binds both the federal crown and the various provincial crowns within the limits of their respective jurisdictions (Pelizzari in Slattery, 1987). In Brian Slattery’s (1987) article, Aboriginal land rights are not confined to "traditional" uses of land. The doctrine of aboriginal title allows a native group a sphere of autonomy, where by it can determine freely how to use its lands. Its decisions may be influenced by "traditional" notions, but the stronger influence in the end will likely be current needs and attitudes. For most native groups, land use is a matter of survival not nostalgia (Cox in Slattery, 1987). However, Slattery’s (1987) reading then goes on to say that Aboriginal rights lie at the core of rights held by ‘Indians’. That, these rights are intimately connected with the use of Indian lands, as with Aboriginal title and hunting and fishing rights. In other cases, they are recognized or defined in treaties with the Crown (Metallic in Slattery, 1987). I find this confusing because Slattery seems to be contradicting himself here. Why would he make a sweeping generalization that for most groups land use is a matter of survival and then proceed to talk about the connectedness Aboriginal groups have with their lands? I suppose one could argue that the author is simply showing a multitude of perspectives to give a well-rounded view. Conversely, I believe that in saying land use is a matter of survival and not nostalgia is maintaining the beliefs held around colonial domination and the assimilation of Indigenous people. While some Indigenous groups may find themselves relying on the land as a means of survival, I do not think it is fair to say that place has no importance on a cultural or spiritual level. Furthermore, land claims have been on the forefront of many cases taken to court (Papillon, 2014).
Indigenous groups have been able to govern themselves as a part of negotiations for larger land-settlements (Papillon, 2014). In Alcantara & Davidson’s (2015) article, they discuss how comprehensive land claims are important because they remove legal uncertainty which allows the lands to be free for further economic development and also allows for governmental protection of natural resources and land. However, not all modern treaties include a self-government section. Because the Crown still wants indigenous nations to be under the constitution, self-government is never offered in the sense of how most Indigenous people see self-determination (Njoku in Alcantara & Davidson, 2015). Many First Nations want a third order government or a return to Nation-Nation. There are significant discrepancies between the nature and form of Crown-recognized and negotiated self-government agreements and the preferences of some Aboriginal groups in Canada (Njoku in Alcantara & Davidson, 2015). This concept of self-government can be related to Papillon’s (2014) article where he discusses self-government in neoliberal times. He describes how Aboriginal communities under self-government agreements are invariably frustrated by the lack of government commitment in the implementation phase, which creates limited positive social and economic impacts at least in the short term (Papillon, 2014). This is pushing First Nations and other Aboriginal peoples to seek alternatives in order to move forward in the face suppressing economic and social challenges (Papillon, 2014).
Indigenous groups are putting pressure on governments to change. This is where self-government meets neoliberalism. This perspective is an entrepreneurial view of self-reliance and accountability in partnerships toward greater Aboriginal participation and economical life (Papillon, 2014). Aboriginal groups are invited to participate in development rather than oppose it (Papillon, 2014). Government is then able to deliver services like education without complex structure of self-government agreements (Papillon, 2014). However, these are sector-specific governance arrangements not self-government (Papillon, 2014). They establish joint objectives and responsibilities. The concern with this model is that there is a shift of the burden of responsibility from the government to frontline Aboriginal organizations but there is no full transference of authority and accountability (Papillon, 2014). Furthermore, this model works well for larger communities but for smaller communities with a little land base to produce economic opportunities they have little hope for (Papillon, 2014). Can two conceptions of self-determination, one focused on concrete incremental economic and social changes on the other based on constitutional and political principles coexist? (Papillon, 2014).
Aboriginal nations have the right to govern themselves within Canada (Castellano & Hylton, 1999). However, the recognition of this right has been difficult to attain (Castellano & Hylton, 1999). The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples has been an important document in recognizing the rights of Indigenous peoples (Castellano & Hylton, 1999). It argues for different understanding of the origins and the constitutional elements of Canadian society (Castellano & Hylton, 1999). Part of the commission demands the ability for Indigenous groups to be self-reliant. To do this, the commission asks to restore economic vitality to Aboriginal peoples, introduce co-management and sharing of resources as well as invest in education and training, and support entrepreneurial activity so Indigenous groups can participate in market economy (Castellano & Hylton, 1999). Two years after the commission was released some improvements were claimed to have been made. For example, Nisgra’s final agreement showed some headway in that Aboriginal people were to be related to the Crown as nations, have a right to self-government and that treaties are for the sharing the wealth of land, not relinquishing it (Castellano & Hylton, 1999).
In the previous three paragraphs is the model of sovereignty I find most interesting. A model which focuses on economic growth and the sharing of resources. It is intriguing to me that in this model, there is a lot of discussion around collaboration between Indigenous groups and the Canadian government. I think that this collaboration can be effective, especially when it comes to the management of large land bases. However, this model does not ensure Aboriginal people self-government, they still would not have complete control over their lives. This is concerning because, although self-government in neo-liberal times may seem enticing with plenty of economic gain, there is no assurance that these sector-specific government agreements will not hold empty promises and revert back to the domination of Indigenous people.
There is a notion that Aboriginal peoples have a right to self-determination which is broadly acknowledged in the international community, the challenge to this is to translate it into concrete institutional arrangements. Thanks to successful aboriginal political and legal activism, the principal of an aboriginal right to self-government has progressively become an integral part of Canada’s institutional landscape in the past 30 years (Papillon, 2014). However, the Aboriginal nations who have agreed to federally sanction self-government also face frustrating delays and ongoing administrative battles as they seek to transform the letter of their agreements into governments practices (Papillon, 2014). Some nations even refuse to engage in the negotiation of self-government agreements under the existing federal policy framework. Even going as far as to say that self-government as it exists today is little more than a new form of colonial domination (Papillon, 2014).